urbanSTL

STLEnginerd wrote: ↑

Mar 28, 2023

its amazing because all of these things seem addressable through smart laws that support transit and consistent committed funding at the federal and state level.  of course you can't get good legislation because the citizenry aren't all that interested in transit and thus don't demand its support at those levels of government.

That seems like a pretty good summary to me. Although I would say citizens have been trained not to be interested in transit by the powers that be, who would rather sell expensive cars than invest in universal mobility.

Two open houses are planned next week for the Northside-Southside Metrolink Expansion.

Public briefings next week on MetroLink expansion

The 'open house'-style sessions will be from 4 to 7 p.m. Monday at Beyond Housing, 6506 Wright Way in Pine Lawn, and 4 to 7 p.m. Tuesday at Doorways, 1101 Jefferson Ave. in St. Louis.

People can stop by at any time during the sessions to get information on expansion proposals and on plans to upgrade security at MetroLink's 38 current stations. There will be no formal presentations.
Participants also can see results of a recent online survey on MetroLink expansion and provide feedback.
Tuesday's session in St. Louis will be on a proposal to build a new MetroLink line running along Jefferson Avenue from Chippewa Street past the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency headquarters.
That route then would follow Parnell Street along the west end of the NGA site, then go west along Natural Bridge Avenue to North Grand Boulevard.

The Monday session in Pine Lawn focuses on four alternate routes between the north end of the proposed city line and into North County.

https://www.stltoday.com/news/local/metro/public-briefings-next-week-on-metrolink-expansion/article_1756853a-f5b6-11ed-bad0-afbf63c92324.html#tracking-source=home-the-latest

If I’m reading this map correctly, the Red/Blue transfer station is going to be a center platform?!

Please tell me they’re going to replace the bridge all together with a hole in the bridge deck for stairs and elevators. Please please please tell me they’re not forcing riders to cross two lanes of Jefferson on top of an overpass to transfer.






Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Totally uneducated guess, but with the station labeled as Scott Ave I bet it’s built before the actual bridge portion itself begins. Like over the approach that has the concrete walls before it actually becomes a bridge over the tracks. That way a new Red/Blue line station could be built north of the metro tracks and then they could have an easier time punching through the ground to build a staircase without having to open a hole in the bridge itself.

Someone who’s an engineer will point out some logical flaw with my assumption, but having a station on the bridge itself doesn’t really make sense as it’s just more engineering to make everything fit.

Not an engineer but spent a few minutes doodling. I still think a new bridge would be needed but here’s a concept.

You’ll disembark the train onto a center platform (light grey). If this is your destination, you’ll head north on the platform and wait to cross either side of Jefferson.

If you’re transferring to Red or Blue you’ll head south on the platform to stairs/elevator. Imagine something very similar to the new CWE station entrance.

Once below grade, you’ll be on a new center platform for Red and Blue Line trains.



In my opinion, this will become the nexus of St. Louis transit and deserves a little more than the Grand MetroLink experience. Therefore, like the idea of a large transparent awning which would rest over Jefferson and both stations.

^^With the exception of the awning that's very much what I was thinking. Ironically, I don't think I ever built the N/S (Yellow?) line in my NIMBY rails empire. Ought to do that one of these days. Anyway, it's a solid concept and seems fairly well thought out. The only real issue that comes to my mind is platform size, as you might want a larger platform since that'd probably be a station with a much larger load than most, thanks to the transfers. The upper platform in particular looks quite small. If I'm measuring it right it's about 2.5K square feet or so, which isn't terrible, but it might get a little overcrowded at peak times. guesstimating Busch as around 5K, and that gets ridiculously tight on game days, spilling over into the street. It's really too small, but it might be hard to fit something larger on the site. The thing that makes me worry is that if a transfer station gets overcrowded there's really no place for it to spill. You could end up with a situation where people are literally unable to safely get off a train if you don't have enough platform space for people to move around away from the tracks some. That said, I really like the idea of the center to center connections. Grand would be a lot more pleasant if it was set up like that: with the 70 route using left side boarding at that station onto an island platform with a direct connection to the Metrolink platform. In truth there's almost no one actually getting on or off the system there, just transferring from one line to the other. Jefferson could be much the same. The more you can make that into a single, two level station, rather than two adjacent stations the better. You just have to make sure there's enough room for folks to circulate and wait.

Despite being fairly new, I wouldn't be surprised if replacing the bridge altogether is the plan. I base this entirely on the fact that the brand new I-44 bridge over Jefferson was knowingly built too low for light rail and the suggestion to fix it was (is) simply to completely rebuild the bridge.

I think you're thinking of the wrong bridge, TWotA. Not the Jefferson Bridge over the train tracks, but the new I44 bridge over Jefferson further south.

I don't understand how the new I-44/Jefferson bridge is too low for a light rail to pass beneath it. Are they really that much taller than tractor trailers?

The wiring for electricity is another 5 feet or so above

I'm inclined to think there's a lower the river solution that might be cheaper than raising the bridge, but . . . it is annoying.

symphonicpoet wrote:I'm inclined to think there's a lower the river solution that might be cheaper than raising the bridge, but . . . it is annoying.

Lowering Jefferson below 44 any further would make flash flooding during heavy rain events much more likely.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

addxb2 wrote: ↑

Jun 20, 2023

symphonicpoet wrote:I'm inclined to think there's a lower the river solution that might be cheaper than raising the bridge, but . . . it is annoying.

Lowering Jefferson below 44 any further would make flash flooding during heavy rain events much more likely.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I'm not really thinking you lower all the pavement. What I had in mind was a trench in the middle for a dedicated light rail ROW. I'll agree that there would be some real challenges, but I believe there's also ways to deal with them. You could make it almost a tunnel, which a portico above the trench entry directing rainfall away from the trench and drains at the entrance and bottom of the trench sufficient to handle any flows. You might well need pumps and retention basins. I won't say it will be easy. But it might be easier than rebuilding the highway and all its associated fill and drainage. It might be necessary to direct all traffic exiting or entering the highway to make right turns rather than crossing the median, which would necessitate traffic circles at either end a short distance before the cut, but that honestly sounds like a net positive anyway. It could simplify signaling and traffic flow a great deal, while making it easier for pedestrians and cyclists to cross. Even lowering the whole road should be possible, but it would be expensive. It's all a matter of drainage and redirecting water flows away. Would doubtless fail from time to time, but . . . we already have that problem. Ain't nothing new there. And I don't think Jefferson at 44 is anywhere near our worst offender. Not saying it will work, but I figure it's worth investigating. (And that the parties responsible will investigate it.)

CMT Talking Transit Presents: Where do you see your MetroLink stop in the Future?

I had thought that the purple line was the unquestioned favorite, but it sounds like the co-favorites are purple and brown. 

Does anyone have a preference? The selection comes in early Fall. 

Both alignments make quite a lot of sense to me. 

The biggest benefit to choosing the purple line would be the connection to the transit center, and it might be why I think this option is still the favorite. It would also connect with StLCC-Florissant Valley.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 
Still, the benefits to the brown line are pretty numerous. This alignment would provide the system with another connection; in addition to the transfer station planned on Jefferson, this transfer station would be near the UMSL North station on the red line, allowing for connection to the airport. This appeared to be one of the most requested stations in their community engagement for the North-South MetroLink line. Another connection to UMSL and the ambitious plans that they have for their campus would not be a bad thing. 

I'm also not sure there would be any better way to secure federal funding than to announce we're developing a light-rail system that goes straight through the heart of Ferguson. 

I also suspect the brown line is significantly cheaper than the purple one.

RockChalkSTL wrote: ↑

Jun 30, 2023

I had thought that the purple line was the unquestioned favorite, but it sounds like the co-favorites are purple and brown. 

Does anyone have a preference? The selection comes in early Fall. 

Both alignments make quite a lot of sense to me. 

The biggest benefit to choosing the purple line would be the connection to the transit center, and it might be why I think this option is still the favorite. It would also connect with StLCC-Florissant Valley.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 
Still, the benefits to the brown line are pretty numerous. This alignment would provide the system with another connection; in addition to the transfer station planned on Jefferson, this transfer station would be near the UMSL North station on the red line, allowing for connection to the airport. This appeared to be one of the most requested stations in their community engagement for the North-South MetroLink line. Another connection to UMSL and the ambitious plans that they have for their campus would not be a bad thing. 

I'm also not sure there would be any better way to secure federal funding than to announce we're developing a light-rail system that goes straight through the heart of Ferguson. 

I also suspect the brown line is significantly cheaper than the purple one.

I like the Purple lines geographic reach and the fact that it does go down the infamous W. Florissant section of Ferguson. With that said, the Brown line would definitely be more economically feasible, could help drive major redevelopment on UMSL campus and in downtown Ferguson, and give an easier transfer to/from the airport. The purple line would definitely have more engineering challenges, going through too many curves, tighter residential streets, and hills, which would definitely balloon the cost.

Purple is better but I’d like the northern section (UMSL to Ferguson) of the Brown Line to be constructed as a Red Line branch. Then 50% of trains terminate at Lambert, 50% terminate in Ferguson.

I wish both could be built. 

The brown line would most certainly assist underserved communities while also adding to the utility of the airport and UMSL. I can't help but wonder if a third on-campus MetroLink station and an ambitious plan for the campus could help thrust the school into something more than a "commuter school." 

I also wonder if the city's NGA-focused North-South MetroLink alignment would not benefit more from a more direct path to the airport. 

Is there a commitment to upzone and remove parking minimums and other auto-centric regulations along any of these lines?